Saturday, February 23, 2008

I’ve seen a few of these lately, but they haven’t been too impressive. (“What unimportant player was White in this game from an obscure local tournament no one has ever heard of?”) The questions below can be answered by anyone willing to do the work. If you can answer them without doing any research, congratulations. No, there isn’t any prize.

Monday, February 18, 2008

LATE NEWS: The Arizona team "We Have Cox," with Robby Adamson, Landon Brownell, Jonathan Cox and Benjamin Marmont scored 6-0 to take first place in the U.S. Amateur Team West. They defeated teams 1, 3, 6 and 4 on the road to the championship, and will now face the winners of the East, North, and West in an on-line playoff in April. Final standings may be found at westernchess.com.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

The second day of the USATW saw a record turnout of 40 teams for the Scholastic Amateur Team, limited to junior teams with an average rating below 1200. Taking clear first with 4-0 was "Beyond Qh5!," with Daniel Lin, David Yang, Kyle Huang and Yusheng Xia. Standings for the main event are posted at westernchess.com, and the Scholastic final standings here.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Forty-nine teams entered the 25th Annual U.S. Amateur Team West, the best turnout since 2002. The 210-player field includes one GM (Sergey Kudrin) and four IMs (Kong Liang Deng, Andranik Matikozyan, Jack Peters and Enrico Sevillano). Standings will be posted after each round here.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

An early example of the double Bishop sacrifice, the “chess mill” theme, and the skill of the then-young Emanuel Lasker, who only five years later would challenge Steinitz for the World Championship.

Em. Lasker - J. BauerAmsterdam 1889BIRD’S OPENING

1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 Nf6 4. b3 Be7 5. Bb2 b6

The flank development of his Queen Bishop fits in well with White’s central formation, but Black’s play is rather obliging — he ought to have tried either for an early ... e6-e5,or ... c7-c5 followed by ... d5-d4.

A bolt from a stormy sky. The key factors of the combination area) the possibility of quickly bringing a Rook into the attack (19. Rf3) and b) the presence of undefended Black pieces, giving the White Queen the chance for a double attack (22. Qd7).

Monday, February 11, 2008

Debate has recently arisen again on the “USCF Forums” about Rule 14H. This is the rule concerning “insufficient losing chances” in sudden-death. The current wordingis that, given less than two minutes remaining and a position in which “a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time,” a player may request TD intervention. This has gone through a number of iterations since the appearance of sudden-death twenty years ago, but in essence it is an attempt to turn SD into an amazing lifelike simulation of “real” chess.

How should such claims be dealt with? Logically, there are four, and only four, possibilities:

1) Require all games to use time-delay clocks. (If you are already s=using time delay, noc claim may be made.)

2) Let the TD adjudicate the position.

3) Put in a time-delay clock and let them play it out.

4) Abolish the claim. If your flag falls in sudden-death, you lose.

Now, “1” is obviously silly, except perhaps in small invitation events where the organizers supply clocks. “2” is essentially the FIDE rule. It was given in the 4th edition of the USCF rulebook (written before time delay clocks were widely available), but the problems with it are pretty obvious. (Do you really want a Class C TD telling Yermolinsky that his game is a draw?)

“3” is the currently preferred USCF option. It requires that the TD keep a clock handy, but that’s not really the problem. What happens when a player “demands” a time-delay clock in a position where he really doesn’t deserve it? “I have the advantage! I’m sure I could draw it against a Master!” If the TD is a weak player and the claimant is loud and pushy, he may get it. If the TD is a strong player and doesn’t feel like being pushed around, he tells the claimant he has a pawn for the initiative in an unclear position, so shut up and play. But the result of the game should never depend on the playing strength of the TD.

“4” has the virtue of simplicity, and has recently been endorsed by Tim Just, who wrote the 5th edition of the rulebook. Twenty years ago I might have been more sympathetic to this idea, on the grounds that it might convince the players that sudden-death was a bad plan. But sudden-death is here to stay, and adopting such a policy now would merely further the debasement of tournament chess into something resembling blitz.

Solution? Absent a time machine, I don’t have one. Those who sought to “improve” tournament chess with such innovations as SD and time-delay created a new set of problems for which there are no good solutions. Now we have to live with it.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

A question I am frequently asked at the start of tournaments is, “Should I deduct time for time-delay?” My answer is always “no.”

The purpose of “deducting” time is to compensate for the extra five seconds per move. One rationale is to make sure all players have the same amount of time (which, of course they won’t – those five-second increments never add up exactly). Another is to get the games over more quickly so you can pair the next round.

However, the current (5th edition) Rulebook advises against deducting (though it is still permissible). The reason is a practical one. They are probably a dozen different delay clocks on the market. If a TD announces that players should deduct five minutes for time-delay, the players will form a line asking him how to set their clocks. Then they’ll form another line a couple of hours later complaining that they didn’t do it right and asking the TD to fix it.

In my opinion, deducting time should be used only if the time between rounds is so tight that there is no way to get the pairings made otherwise. And, if that’s the problem, you should change your format.

Choosing

Who decides what equipment to use? Some older players are still under the impression that Black always gets the choice, but that’s no longer the case. The USCF, wisely or not, has changed the equipment rule as follows:

1) Black gets the choice of standard equipment.

2) Time-delay clocks (with the delay in effect) are “more standard” (I know it makes no sense, but that’s what it says) than “analog” clocks (you know, the ones with hands).

3) So, if either player has a delay and wants to use it, he can. If both players have delay clocks, or both have “analog” clocks, Black gets to choose.

4) Exception: If one player is present at the start of the round and the other is not, the player who is present gets to set up and start. By not being there at the round time, the other player forfeits any right to object, period.

Switching

I’ve been seeing a few requests lately from players to insert a time-delay clock at some point in the game, typically when the player starts to worry about losing on time. Short answer: No. There is no rule allowing a player to “request” or “demand” a time delay clock after the game has started, except for the special case of an “insufficient losing chances” claim.

This claim can only be made only if the player has less than two minutes remaining in a sudden-death time control. It amounts to a draw offer, which your opponent can accept if he wants. The TD may uphold the claim (if it’s something obvious like Bishop and wrong Rook pawn versus King in the right corner) or reject it and give your opponent an extra two minutes as a penalty (if the claim is obviously frivolous or made to gain time), but usually he will put in a time-delay clock and let you play it out. If you can’t hold the game with five seconds a move, you had sufficient losing chances to lose.